| Author |
Message |
Elling Polden
|
 Posted: Tue 02 Sep, 2008 10:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I've done quite a lot of spear fighing in reenactment. However, this does not include head hits, which would be THE major part of a spear fight.
Spears are quite simple in their opperation, and quite predictable. However, they are also fast. Thus, killing with the spear is mostly a question of striking before the enemy can react.
Two handed spears can feint, one handed spears are pretty much all speed and looking for openings.
In a tight formation,one handed spears would work more or less on the machinegun principle; Stab at people's heads so fast that they don't have time to stab back.
A one handed spear can pound three or four people at a time in close ranks. If you have the pressure, these will hopefully lift their shields and back away rather than stab back.
This can happen quite quickly; A formation that has more psychological momentum as it hits can establish an advantage instantly
A formation pushed back in this fashion will most likely break and run.
It would seem likely that the roman javelin and sword loadout was a response to this kind of warfare, skipping the static stabb-out phase, and going straight to close combat. The cheek guards of roman helmets would also protect against cross-striking spears, as would the brim, when the head is angled forward.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
    |
 |
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Wed 03 Sep, 2008 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Would it be likely that when you're making this impact, and doing the first bit of fighting, that some of the front ranks would use their secondary weapons instead? I'm thinking that if the two sides hit, the front ranks are going to be less than a foot apart, making a spear a bit cumersome.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
   |
|
|
Brian Robson
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Sep, 2008 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Depends a lot on the length of spear.
I think there are almost two comversations going on in this thread - one discussing shield-walls + relatively short/light 1-handed spears held high and stabbing downwards, and another discussing their large 2-handed cousins.
I think the short spears are short enough so that you don't get in the situation where the point is past the first rank of the opposition.
Like Elling, I have done a lot of shield-wall work in live-steel re-enactment - but agin with limited target areas for safety. It's my view that these short spears would be constantly targetting the head/face - which they are short enough to do when the shields are in contact with the opposition. Its also my view that there was probably a lot of time spent just at 'stabbing distance' - where you can sway back-off/cover yourself to protect yourself - because people simply don't want to die. Once you are in close then you know you're gonna get hurt. I kind of wonder how much of that would have been simply putting your head down with your brow on the shield rim to present your helmet - or raising the shield to cover your face and blindly stabbing... I would imagine the instinct to stay alive would be greater than the instinct to kill.
An interesting point with this is on the design of mail too.. It generally had short sleeves for the period where the short-spear+shield was the norm. This makes perfect sense to me after having tried to fight that way with long-sleeves. It takes less than two minutes for your arm to tire from holding it up with mail on. So I guess stopping your spear-arm from tiring was more important than protecting it with armour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 04 Sep, 2008 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| M. Eversberg II wrote: | | I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in this discussion, as I have sadly never had the honor of holding a proper spear. I've always wondered how well one uses it one handed; it's often depicted as such but it seems as if it would be a bit difficult to keep the point "on target". Perhaps training is the answer to that? |
The answer is experience, I guess--and NOT holding onto your spear too tightly. In my own personal experience, an overly tight grip on the spear's haft does more to wreck a thrust's accuracy than many other things.
| Quote: | | I often wonder if two formations clashed if they would be able to HOLD said formation? I would think it would as often fall into a general melee than not, considering how loud that struggle would be in comparison to how loud orders would be. |
Yes, they would be able to hold the formation; they'd certainly lose the neat straightness of the lines, but the opposing lines would remain quite distinct with little or no intermingling. People's instinct in a real life-or-death hand-to-hand combat situation is to bunch up rather than to spread out, and the people who break the line by advancing too far tend to get mobbed and killed pretty quickly. A chaotic general melee was probably the exception rather than the rule in ancient and medieval infantry combat. Try reading up on John Keegan's The Face of Battle or Phil Sabin(?)'s reconstructions of Roman infantry tactics. Or maybe Ardant du Picq--there's a good translation of his Battle Studies on Project Gutenberg. There's also a nice summary about the most recent theories about infantry combat in Gary Brueggeman's Roman army site.
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: | | On the training that citizen soldiers received, I've always wondered about that. From what I've read of Greek battles, it always seemed that they were well-drilled, but maybe that only applied to the professionals- eg the spartiates and thebans you mentioned, and perhaps mercenaries like those in Xenophon's Anabasis. Do we have any records of the amount and type of training greek citizen-soldiers received? |
Well, yes, Xenophon's Anabasis mentions bits and pieces about the drills of his mercenary hoplites. The funniest bit is their coordinated charge against the merchants' tents--a hilarious bit of ancient horseplay, if I may say so. Project Guntenberg has Dakyns's old translation here.
Another Xenophon source that might be worth checking is the Polity of the Athenians and Lacedaemonians--again, Dakyns's translation is available through PG.
| M. Eversberg II wrote: | | Would it be likely that when you're making this impact, and doing the first bit of fighting, that some of the front ranks would use their secondary weapons instead? I'm thinking that if the two sides hit, the front ranks are going to be less than a foot apart, making a spear a bit cumersome. |
Probably yes. The most detailed sources we have about the mechanics of massed spear-fighting in close-order formations are the ones dealing with ancient Greek hoplites, and they frequently mention the hoplites' spears breaking as the opposing lines crashed into each other. Drawing swords seems to have been a fairly common reaction among hoplites who got their spears broken; remember what I said about the Spartans' skill in swordfighting?
However, it should also be noted that a spear--whether broken or unbroken--is not rendered completely useless at such distances. You can always shorten your grip on the spear and use it to stab like a knife over your opponent's shield. In many cases the spear would have had a buttspike so that it would still be usable as a close combat weapon even after it was broken--this was the purpose of the Greek sauroter ("lizard-sticker") after all--and ironically the broken spear might be an even handier weapon than a full-length one if/when the warrior wielding it was pressed into a very close-range shield-to-shield contact.
And of course (as Brian has already said) there's be plenty of tentative stabbing from a relatively safe distance.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Sep, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even the overhanded one handed spears could be quite long. The byzantine Skutaoi used one handes spears 4-4,5 m long!
These where (as far as I've gathered) held in the middle, thrown forward, and pulled back. This tactic was also used by pikemen in the the late renaicance.
As for closing to backup weapons, this is a probable tactic. However, if both sides are armed with spears, they will most likely stay at stabbing distance rather than push into each other. A single individual with a close combat weapon in this enviroment would most likely just defend himself.
Roman Legionaries, however, did not have spears, and would be "forced" to charge almost instantly, covered by the initial hail of javelins.
Against a spear armed phalanx, this would be very unsetlling, as it would force the entire front rank to take a step back to get out their swords, hopefully breaking them.
Of course, if the romans failed to pass the spearpoints they would be ground up, but it seems to have worked.
(the romans themselves adopted the sword and javelin figthing style from the Samnites, in favour of the Etruscan style phalanx they had used earlier.)
It would appear that around 1300 heavier armour made the one handed spear to innefficient, and two handed spears became the norm, starting the trend that culuminated with the pike.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Fri 05 Sep, 2008 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
How far apart do you think individuals in this formation would be? Would there be some staggering to allow the back of the spear to pass between people easier?
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Sat 06 Sep, 2008 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Elling Polden wrote: | | Roman Legionaries, however, did not have spears, and would be "forced" to charge almost instantly, covered by the initial hail of javelins. |
Not necessarily--the pila were stout and heavy enough to work effectively as thrusting spears, and the Romans used them for this purpose quite successfully on several occasions. But you do have a point in that most of these occasions (Julius Caesar's trick at Palae-Pharsalos and Marcus Antonius's Parthian expedition) were mostly defensive stands or counter-charges conducted at very short range against cavalry, and indeed Roman manuals as late as the 6th century B.C. advised that legionaries in the attack should preferably throw their spears before closing in with the sword.
| M. Eversberg II wrote: | | How far apart do you think individuals in this formation would be? Would there be some staggering to allow the back of the spear to pass between people easier? |
Which formation? A spear phalanx? Very, very close--though maybe not quite as close as a pike phalanx, since the spear's greater flexibility in the attack means that it (ironically) needs a bit more room to wield than a full-sized pike. Personally I don't find any need for staggering to make the formation work. You just have to hope that the man behind you has enough armor or handles his shield sufficiently well to protect him from your (almost inevitable) boo-boos.
Of course, staggered ranks in one form of another is still a plausible theory and I wouldn't discount it out of hand. Going back to Gary Brueggeman's site, he discusses the idea a bit in his models for the enemies of Rome.
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Mon 08 Sep, 2008 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | Elling Polden wrote: | | Roman Legionaries, however, did not have spears, and would be "forced" to charge almost instantly, covered by the initial hail of javelins. |
Not necessarily--the pila were stout and heavy enough to work effectively as thrusting spears, and the Romans used them for this purpose quite successfully on several occasions. But you do have a point in that most of these occasions (Julius Caesar's trick at Palae-Pharsalos and Marcus Antonius's Parthian expedition) were mostly defensive stands or counter-charges conducted at very short range against cavalry, and indeed Roman manuals as late as the 6th century B.C. advised that legionaries in the attack should preferably throw their spears before closing in with the sword.
|
Well, cavalry would of course be different. However the legionares equipment was developed to counter spear armed phalanxes, not cavalry. (More spesifically by samnites to counter roman phalanx)
My point was that they try to aviod the spear pushing match by rushing right away. Naturally, if there are no spears this will work differently.
On the spacing of spears, I would asume the lines to be quite tight, as this both consentrates power and protects you from the other sides cross strikes.
A loose line is more flexible, and can flank the foe, but loose formations traditionally are reluctant to fight tight formations unless their morale is very high. In reenactment fighting, where fear of death is not a factor, lapping around is a very effective tactic. However, it seens to have been less common in real life.
In Norway, the Birkebeiner faction (in the late 12th c. civil wars) where famous for fighitng in loose order, though they are also famous for their high morale, and sly tactics.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Lopez
Location: Earth,Texas Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue 09 Dec, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: This |
|
|
Well Instead of fighting face to face why don't you go around them you know surround them with ure spears that the enemy will have to bunch up that way if ure smart enuf your archer can quickly get at them before they try to break thru or if the enemy is smart enuf the will bunch up and put there shield up above there heads thus leaving them exposed from both elements well the ones in the back of the front ranks anyway and then as arrows bombard them there arms would get tired and sooner or later the front ranks would start dwindling leaving those whose shield is up a brief time of exposure also who would protect there heads and backs as they continue to be bombarded also if they are killed in that breif time then the one behind him will also get killed and then a opprotunity of an exposed formation.huzzah!
El Lopez,Imperial Lieutenat Colonel of the Kasursain Empire,Diplomat of the Tribe Domination,And the Protector of the weak conquerer of the Corrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's not that easy to surround enemy except your numbers are much superior. Or if you deploy in a long thin line and that is dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
M. Eversberg II
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not to mention that combat is loud, and shouting orders to an entire formation difficult.
M.
This space for rent or lease.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Wed 10 Dec, 2008 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Of course, if the romans failed to pass the spearpoints they would be ground up, but it seems to have worked |
Actually, from everything I have read, this tactic did not work well.
As long as a Hellenisitc armies spearmen kept formation, they were rarely ever defeated frontally.
Roman victories where the main battle line won usually amounted to one of a few things - either the pikemen became disorgaized pusruing or advancing in bad terrain, or the pike unit was flanked. Otherwise the Romans were rather ineffectual.
I can list some battles where this happened, but just look at most of the battles of Rome vs. Hellenisitc Kingdoms
A wall of pikes presents a formidable opponent from the front. Now, if there is disorganization because of bad ground, they lose a ton of effectiveness. Non Pike armed Roman units had less of a problem with this.
The other issue is a few pikemen turning and running severely effect the formation, and can have a domino effect. THis is mostly caused by fear spreading through the unit if also fighting units on the flank or rear, though a launch of pila can have this effect, though not usually. With lower disciple/training/morale, it also becomes an issue.
The other problem is once an opposing unit gets through the wall of pikes, the pikemen are pretty well toast.
IMO, the Romans used the pila/sword arrangement partially because this was a more flexible unit, better able to withstand flanking attacks. As the Romans were not one of the stronger cavalry using nations, they could not rely as well upon their cavalry to protect a less flexible pike unit.
The Hellenisitc kingdoms, modelled after Alexanders army, were based more on a combined arms tactic, where their pikemen were not designed to win battles but hold the main battle line, the cavalry and other troops causing havoc while the pikemen held the main battle line. It's funny though that the later Hellenisitc kingdoms for whatever reason began to rely less on combined arms and more on pikemen. This was I think much to their undoing, a btter combined arms package would have fared better against the Romans.
Back to the Spear question - The shorter 1 handed spear was used overhand I know. But my thought is it would be tough to get a good strike in - the opponent has a shield up, the only thing they are really going to have to be concerened about is a blow to the head I would think. Would not a stab at the legs be real awkward here?
But from what I know a clash of spearmen was much like a rugby scrum. Interesting that some say the second line could get strikes in even with shorter spears. I would think dropping a spear and going to the sidearm would be a wise option when you are pretty well pressing shield to shield with an opponent?
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Dec, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Spears genrally would target the head, because it is the closest bit, and sticks up over the shield. While spear thrusts are rather predictable, they can be very fast. Your best shots would not be against the guy directly opposite you, but the ones next to him. It is hard to block what you can't see.
One on one, a underhand grip gives more flexibility. The overhand thrust is more powerfull, and enables you to throw, but by holding the spear underhand you can make upwards attacks as well as downward, enabling such basic techniques as the HIgh-low feint. Of course, in the line speed and power are more important than individual flexibility.
Exactly how close the lines where would probably vary a lot. Spearmen generally want to stay at spearlength (big surpise there) but a formation pushing forward could result in a total clash. In this case, the spear is just in the way, and you would drop or throw it and go for backup.
At the same time, the desire to avoid this also causes the line to budge as the front ranks try to back up to maintain range.
Again, keep in mind that making the enemy back up and break is more important than actuall kills in a real battle.
In reenactment combat, its not unusall for a the team whos line breaks first to actually win the following melee, but I can't think of any instances of this happening in the real world.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus Rizzo
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Dec, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey I notice several posts on fighting with one handed spears, I just thought i'd throw in my own two cents on two handed spears for a bit of balance:
Like the other re-enactors here I only have experience attacking safe zones (no headshots or groin shots, which of course would be where most real shots would be aimed at) anyway spear on spear you tend to stay at a distance not go in for a press for obvious reasons, usually you will work in pairs, it works better than fighting alone, where one person will try and knock the opponents spear out of the way and the second will finish him off. Generally we find the side with more or longer spears tends to win these matches.
Against Shield walls lots of stabbing (in real life probably against the face and feet) to make them open gaps (again often working in two's, to exploit eachothers gaps). Spear on Spear the line tends not to close because spears are much more effective than any secondary weapon a spearman carries in the 12th C. Spear on Shields as long as the Shields are defending spearmen can easily beat them, its much harder though for spearmen to hold of a counter charge i've found, and the spears tend to die horribily or break and run.
An intresting formation (and I don't know if there is any historical evidence for it, I just know we use it because it works) is to put a shield wall in front of a unit of spear men with spears projecting over the shieldwall shoulders, this allows you to have the range of the 9-12 foot spears (when you use them two handed you can also hold them at the very back which give you the full length of the spear as opposed to 1/2 length) but also gives the spear men the benefit of the mail clad shield wall as protection (also in a close quaters clash they won't get butchered so easily, rather they can add their weight to the shield wall.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
James Lopez
Location: Earth,Texas Joined: 09 Dec 2008
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Thu 11 Dec, 2008 5:04 pm Post subject: this |
|
|
WAIT HOLD UP IN THE 21st Century real quick people actually still reanact these batles that are older than the bible itself that's.....AWESOME!!!!! where do these take place i want to see them WOOT!
El Lopez,Imperial Lieutenat Colonel of the Kasursain Empire,Diplomat of the Tribe Domination,And the Protector of the weak conquerer of the Corrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Dec, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Again, keep in mind that making the enemy back up and break is more important than actuall kills in a real battle.
In reenactment combat, its not unusall for a the team whos line breaks first to actually win the following melee, but I can't think of any instances of this happening in the real world. |
Pretty much what I have read. Melee between 2 formed bodies could wind up not to different from a Rugby scrum, and the two things that more an effect upon morale were being pushed back, and casualties inflicted/received.
Actually I have read that death in close large unit combat was as likley to be caused by trampling or not being able to breath as much as it would be to be struck buy a weapon, though often all three would factor in to some extent.
Of course, a spear vs spear standoff is likley going to be different than one with spear and swords, say like Roman Legionairres. The Romans will want to push into the formation, closing to short range for weapon use, the Spearmen want to keep them at bay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
James R.Fox
Location: Youngstowm,Ohio Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 253
|
| Posted: Fri 12 Dec, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr Pengryffin-In so far as I am aware, most ,if not all of the classical city-states required male citizens to undergo military training.In some Dorian states, like Sparta, you could not be a citizen untill you finished military training plus 10 years of active duty. In Athens, young men 18 years old were drafted into the ephebate, and did 2 years of training,moreover, their school system emphisized those sports related to warfare such as spear-throwing,boxing, pancration (greek style martial arts) and so on.
Ja68ms
|
|
 |
|
|
Marc Pengryffyn
Location: Canberra, Australia Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Dec, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James R.Fox wrote: | | Mr Pengryffin-In so far as I am aware, most ,if not all of the classical city-states required male citizens to undergo military training.In some Dorian states, like Sparta, you could not be a citizen untill you finished military training plus 10 years of active duty. In Athens, young men 18 years old were drafted into the ephebate, and did 2 years of training,moreover, their school system emphisized those sports related to warfare such as spear-throwing,boxing, pancration (greek style martial arts) and so on. |
Thanks James, that question was a while ago! I'd nearly forgotten it. That's pretty much what I'd vaguely remembered from my ancient history at school. I'm trying to get a handle on how complicated the manoeuvring of the less professional greek phalanx could be, the kind made up of citizens with about two years 'national service'.... I'll probably have to go back and re-read lots of Greek history! Bummer! 
Thanks
marc
Tradition is the illusion of permanence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcus Rizzo
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Dec, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James R.Fox wrote: | | Mr Pengryffin-In so far as I am aware, most ,if not all of the classical city-states required male citizens to undergo military training.In some Dorian states, like Sparta, you could not be a citizen untill you finished military training plus 10 years of active duty. In Athens, young men 18 years old were drafted into the ephebate, and did 2 years of training,moreover, their school system emphisized those sports related to warfare such as spear-throwing,boxing, pancration (greek style martial arts) and so on. |
I think it was in Peter Connolies book, but i'm not sure (i don't have it with me right now either) but I was reading that while you where required to undergo training such as the pancration and such, and that military service was indeed a sort of pre-requisite for the city states.
Intrestingly though drill was nearly absent from Greek training (outside of Sparta), sort of makes you think about how the 5th Century Phalanx worked...
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Sat 13 Dec, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Drill is mainly used for moving around in a coordninated and efficient manner. Forming a tight shieldwall style formation isn't all that hard, moving several hundred men from A to B while maintinaing formation is.
Greek phalanx warfare obviosly was not very focused on manouver, so drill would be less important than fighting spirit and skill.
Later organized armies (like the romans or renisance/modern pike/musket squares), however, would practice drill heavily, and keep focus little on actual combat skill.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic